Remove an unwanted stock document (received slip) by specifying its record ID and accounting year.
Delete a stock document (received slip) by ID and year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stock document record ID | |
| year | Yes | Accounting year |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action and target but does not mention whether deletion is permanent or irreversible, any permission requirements, or potential side effects on related records.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The verb and target are front-loaded, making the tool’s purpose immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete operation, the schema fully documents the inputs and the description conveys the core action. However, the lack of annotations, output schema, and any behavioral caveats means the description is minimally adequate rather than fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with types and constraints, and schema description coverage is 100%. The phrase “by ID and year” reinforces the schema but adds no meaningful detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (“Delete”), a concrete resource type (“stock document”), and clarifies the resource with the parenthetical “received slip.” It also specifies the lookup key (“by ID and year”), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling delete tools like m3_delete_stock_card or m3_delete_inventory_document.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternative delete-related siblings, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.